Kids and the Internet

An interesting piece from the Center for Media Research last week on kids and their Internet behavior. It dealt with a survey conducted by Common Sense Media in conjunction with The Benenson Strategy Group. Bottom Line: there is a big disconnect between what kids are doing on the Internet and what parents think they're doing, according to the survey.

Here are a few examples:

• Sixteen percent of parents think that their kids have sent information over the Internet that they shouldn't have. In the survey, 28 percent of kids copped to having done that,.
• Responding parents said that eight percent of their kids posed as adults in chat rooms, IM-ing, etc. The real number: closer to 18 percent
• Four percent of parents thought their kids has signed on to someone else's social networking site using a purloined password, when reality was six times greater than that-24 percent

Perhaps one of the riskier behaviors having gained a lot of media attention over the last year is posting nude or semi-nude self-images on the Internet. Only two percent of parents thought kids do that. Reality: 13 percent of the juvenile respondents say it happens.

The survey provides a glimpse of overall teenage Internet habits. More than half of kids surveyed visit a social networking site (Facebook, MySpace, etc.) more than once a day, and about of half of those kids visit ten or more times a day.

A third of the juvenile respondents said they visit gaming sites more than once daily, about double the number that visit Internet teen chat rooms.

But about seven percent are frequent visitors to sites that that provide homework help-about the same number that visit sports-related sites.

In 2004, Chris Anderson wrote an article called "The Long Tail" where he applied the statistical model of consumer behavior (diminishing but long-lasting effect) to the phenomenon that Internet information. Essentially after you post it, Internet information can live for a very long time and be accessible to millions of people. In the "Long Tail" category, nearly 40 percent of kids said they had posted something they later regretted, a quarter of respondents had sent pictures they're now not sure they would want shared, or had posted information they would not normally have shared with millions of strangers.

Call it Poster's Remorse.

Just thought you might like to know.

The Dismal Science

I have long maintained that one way to promote long term health for our national economy is to mandate the teaching of economics in school to kids as young as 12. If Americans learned from an early age that wages, jobs, taxes and the value of a dollar are all interrelated they'd be less inclined to support politicians and parties that take the easy way out of raising your  taxes without doing the hard work of cutting spending. Case in point: the formerly wealthy state of Connecticut.

The ruling class in Connecticut is trying to confiscate a whopping $1 billion plus from its citizens through yet another hike in the the state's income tax. Better yet, this one would be retroactive to January 1. If you live in Connecticut your rulers want to go back and re-tax your earnings on which you've already paid taxes.

What is even more breathtaking to realize is that until 1992, the year the state income tax went into effect, Connecticut was one of the wealthiest states in the country. Here's what happened when they started wringing the neck of the golden goose:

• Since the income tax went into effect, Connecticut has created zero new jobs. Zero. In 17 years. This according to this morning's Wall Street Journal
• As the tax rate has continued to climb, Connecticut, once a magnet for the rich, the powerful and those who wanted to be both, has had a net outflow of people to other states. If you live in Connecticut, the only thing that could be worse would be living in New York or New Jersey--the two states with the highest per capita tax burdens. 
• Since the income tax was created, government spending has exploded. Pre-tax the state was middle-of-the-road in per capita spending. Now it's in the top (or bottom?) ten.

The reason people keep electing politicians like Connecticut's governor Jody Rell or New Jersey's Jon Corzine is that they fail to see the connection between high taxes, low growth, and diminished personal opportunity. Taxes and growth are proportionately inverse. As taxes go up, economic opportunity goes down. And those on the lowest rung of the ladder hit bottom first.

On the other hand, as tax burden goes down, opportunity for all citizens rises as everyone has more money to spend, creating jobs for others so that they too can prosper. The states where voters fail to learn this lesson are places like New York, New Jersey, California, and Connecticut. On the other hand, states like Texas, which has no income tax, have weathered the recession better, putting them in a position to grow and attract new business and create new jobs as profligate states like Connecticut lose theirs.

If kids were taught this from an early age, spendthrift politicians would be a lot less likely to get their hands on your wallet. But unfortunately the schools are controlled by the teachers unions, whose members are among the biggest beneficiaries of this unrestrained spending. 

Economics may be the dismal science, but nothing's more dismal than being chased out of your home because you can no longer afford to live there. 

Just thought you might like to know.

More Flotsam in Turtle Bay

 

 

The organization that brought you a state sponsor of terrorism as head of the Security Council, Somalia and Darfur, and an armed Yasir Arafat at the lectern now brings you another pearl of wisdom.

The United Nations Economic, Cultural and Social Organization (UNESCO) has just unveiled a 100-page award-winner on children and sexuality. The UN's recommendation for economic, social and cultural harmony in the world: Let's teach five year olds how to masturbate. I kid you not. Just when you thought that the UN could not slip further from reality...

Among UNESCO's other recommendations:

• Teach five year olds, who generally can't count backward from 10, about gender roles, gender stereotypes and gender-based violence

• Cell phone-craving nine year olds should be taught about aphrodisiacs instead
  

• By age 15 children should be inculcated with the "access to safe abortion" talking points
  

Needless to say, family advocates are up in arms. 

At five-years old kids learning about sex should focus on the names of body parts, says Michelle Turner of Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum.

That our tax dollars support junk like this should not be a surprise to anyone who's lived through the ongoing governmental power grab in the U.S. over the last eight months. While the researchers who authored the document may be eminent in their field, their answer--that governments world over should educate children about sex--is an anathema to many people here in the U.S. and abroad. 

With all the problems we face in this world, this is just another wasteful project from Turtle Bay. I am by no means an isolationist. I believe strongly in multilateralism. But, let's be honest: Name one lasting accomplishment of the UN that has benefited humanity over the last 60 years. You can't.

While I believe in multilateralism, the UN has failed at its mission. I believe the United States should withdraw its membership, giving the organization time to decamp from Turtle Bay. Let it set up shop in, say, Tripoli, Khartoum, or Tehran. 

Then it can fulfill its true mission: A global trade association for third world socialist dictators.

Just thought you might like to know.

Америка, мои товарищи

This year we commemorate the 90th birthday of Saul Alinsky.  He is generally credited as the father of community organizing, a quasi-profession that received a lot of attention but not a lot of analysis when candidate Barack Obama touted his experience as a community organizer in his run for president.

Last week my brother emailed me some of the wit and wisdom of Saul Alinsky. In 1971, shortly before he died,  Alinsky wrote a primer on community organizing called Rules for Radicals--a legacy to leave college and high school students at the time to carry on his work. He left them gems such as this: "The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away."

Here are some of his rules for community organizing:

• Judgment must be made in the context of the times in which the action occurred and not from any other chronological vantage point. The idea that judgment is relative, based on current events, is at the heart of the judicial activism  which leftists love to embrace, and which gave us Sonia Sotomayor as a Supreme Court justice.

• In war the end justifies almost any means. This is the philosophy that brought us Lenin and Stalin. But it was taught to a generation of students 38 years ago.

• You do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments.  The idea that morality is relative and only useful to accomplish some other agenda is the backbone of modern liberalism.



Saul Alinsky believed that America was  a zero-sum game--that one man's gain must be another
man's loss. He was sightless to the vision of America. He failed to see that in this country there are no guarantees, just a lot of opportunity. He walked past and ignored the objective standards that hold us together as a nation. Worst of all, he failed to see the unbounded capacity for goodness in America and all its people. 



He was the New American Bolshevik. Someone for whom morality was relative. Someone who believed not in a nation of laws, but in the law of relativism--that the law meant whatever you needed it to mean at a particular point in time. 


Because of this he believed the political end justified the means for getting there.

 I bring this up as we wait for September and the final act of our national healthcare debate. Many of the old liberal "bulls" in Congress--the Waxmans, the Nadlers, the Millers the Pelosis--came of age in the 1960s  and 1970s at a time when Alinsky passed the torch to a new generation of radicals. Largely white, middle class, well educated radicals.  People who for 15 years tore at the fabric of this country until conservatives slowly regained a balance in government, a balance that lasted for 20 years. 



For these old bulls, stamping healthcare with the mark of socialism will be their crowning achievement, a return to the glory days. But for America it will mark more than a step back in time. It will begin a descent into a place from which there is no return. A place of moral relativism repugnant to both gods and laws. A place of pessimism, defeatism and division. For if a small minority can take away our right of medical privacy and independence, it can take away most other rights as well. 

Gerald Ford said a government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take away everything you  have. 

That's the America of Saul Alinsky and the old bulls.

Just thought you might like to know.

Health Care Bill of Rights for Seniors

The Republican National Committee has just published what it is calling a "bill of rights" for seniors regarding health care. The six tenets of the proposal are:

1. Protect Medicare from cuts made in the name of healthcare reform
   
2. Prohibit intrusion by government in the doctor-patient relationship
   
3. Don't ration healthcare based on age
   
4. Don't let government interfere with end-of-life discussions between a patient and doctor
   
5. Allow seniors to keep their current coverage
   
6. Preserve current healthcare programs for veterans
   

Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele discusses the Seniors' Healthcare Bill of Rights on Fox News' Fox and Friends show below:

This is a good start for Republicans who were shamefully late in getting to the healthcare party. But, in my estimation, it does not provide enough thought leadership in the healthcare debate to counter the Democrat pitch which has been 15 years in the making. 

The first proposal is somewhat disingenuous for both parties since it was Republicans whom the Democrats excoriated in the 1980s when they tried to make cuts to rein in Medicare spending. Now the shoe is on the other foot. 

Proposal #4 is similarly problematic. House Bill 3200, the healthcare bill, does indeed reference end-of-life discussions. But the context is to allow doctors to be paid for the time it takes to carefully explain all options to a patient and his or her family. Anyone who has ever dealt with a terminally ill family member knows these discussions. They are useful for the patient, the patient's loved ones, and I suspect, the physician as well. Currently this time is not reimbursable by Medicare. This would allow physicians to get paid for their advice and counsel, which is the correct thing to do.

Here's where we get wrapped around the axle on end-of-life: Many of the people who support the bill in general do not share the pro-life beliefs that many of the bill's opponents hold. Proponents, for example, are more likely to favor euthanasia as an end-of-life choice, an anathema to anyone who favors life over death. The Blogosphere is replete with stories about Oregon and its assisted suicide law, and with tales of Oregonians who could not get life-prolonging drugs, but could easily get a prescription for euthanasia drugs. No wonder that so many pro-life people are wary of this end-of-life requirement. 

Proposals 3 and 5 are much more on target. Nationalized healthcare proponents point frequently to the British and Canadian healthcare systems as models we should follow. But these systems, because of their tremendous cost are forced to ration healthcare based on age. The National Health Service in the U.K. uses quality adjusted life years, or QALY scoring to calculate the cost benefit of a particular health intervention for a patient before agreeing to pay for it. 

This is similar to a company doing a cost-benefit analysis on the purchase of a piece of equipment: what is the cost of the purchase, how long will it take to recover the cost of the expense, and what will the purchase yield in terms of revenue.  QALYs analyze how old the patient is, how much the procedure will cost, how many years will it add to the patient's life and what the quality of those years will be. 

Those of us opposed to this kind of approach believe that when you're on the back nine of life you deserve the dignity of not being analyzed like a dump truck or a trash compactor. But it all comes down to money. Universal coverage is so expensive that hard decisions like this have to be made.

Proposal #5 addresses another real concern for seniors. Pres. Obama says repeatedly that under his socialized medicine plan you can keep your private coverage. But, either the President does not really understand the healthcare debate and is doing a really, really good job of faking it, or he's hiding the truth. Take your pick. Should ObamaCare become law you will be able to keep your policy. But as time rolls on, more and more people will be forced into the government's program. 

Businesses will probably be the first. Rather than pay a payroll tax or a large portion of their revenue in group healthcare insurance premiums, they'll just cancel their policies and force their employees into the "government option." These are the younger healthier people who use less healthcare than seniors. When the private sector insurance customers skew too much towards seniors who use a lot of healthcare, costs will escalate to the point that seniors will be forced into the government plan.

The President said in 2003 that he favored a single-payer plan, but admitted that it might take awhile to get there. So he's like the used car salesman who brags about the four new tires on that shiny '74 Cordoba, but "forgets" to tell you that the transmission has about another 500 miles of life.

ObamaCare is problematic for seniors, no doubt about it. But the Republican Healthcare Bill of Rights for Seniors is problematic for the party, exposing its basic weakness on healthcare and everything else, frankly. Its first official foray into the healthcare debate is on behalf of old white people. The Democrats are making their appeal to the two fastest growing segments of the population: Hispanics and young adults. Healthcare is  a game Republicans can't win on numbers alone. The President and his party simply have to wait them out, as Barack Obama said in 2003, unless the GOP can come up with something better than this.

Just thought you might like to know.

The Payoffs Continue

The Federal Reserve Bank of New York announced Monday that a New York labor boss, Denis Hughes, has been named to head the bank's board of directors. 

This is big news because among the 12 Federal Reserve banks, the New York Fed is the greatest among equals.

As John Hilsenrath blogged in yesterday's Wall Street Journal, the chairmen of the 12 Fed District Banks are supposed to have experience in banking--but not be bankers, according to the 1913 law that created the Federal Reserve System. That's a challenge. Typically the role is filled by an ex-banker or an academic with economic experience.

Fed boards are supposed to reflect the banking and community interests of their Districts. But this isn't about reflecting the community's interest. This is about reflecting the interest of Big Labor.

Big Labor put Barack Obama in the White House. The payoffs that began with a sweetheart deal for Labor on the Chrysler bailout and effective control of General Motors, continue with this little plum job.

I'm all for Fed banks reflecting the composition of their districts. But only one quarter of New Yorkers belong to labor unions. There certainly have to be more--say housewives--in New York. How about a housewife as chairman of the New York Fed?

More than two million New Yorkers receive food stamps. Why not try a food stamp recipient as New York Fed chairman?

I don't know about you, but when I go to the doctor, I'm comforted to see all of her diplomas and certificates framed on the wall. If I were in the examination room and the plumber had just finished fixing the sink, I'd be less comforted if he offered to fix my leaky heart valve while he was at it. 

Call me crazy, but I think banks should be headed up by--well, bankers. Especially the most important branch of the most important central bank in the world.

The Obama cadre can shore up its Hispanic base with a Supreme Court nomination, or preempt a rival by offering her the top State Department portfolio, but when it comes to our monetary system, let's not play politics. 

Just thought you might like to know.

The Gathering Storm

It was back in April that Attorney General Eric Holder memoed CIA employees, writing that "(i)t would be unfair to prosecute dedicated men and women working to protect America for conduct that was sanctioned in advance by the Justice Department." Apparently, his boss failed to read the memo.

Yesterday, Attorney General Holder backpeddled and reversed direction, announcing the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate so-called "CIA crimes" that took place in the aftermath of 9-11.

In doing so, he has opened up a firestorm that will consume many good employees at the CIA, the nation's early detection system against terrorist threats, and any shred of bipartisanship that may still exist in some dark corner of Washington. And, it may ultimately consume his boss along with it--much in the same way that Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter allowed their presidencies consumed by Vietnam, Watergate and Iran, respectively.

Let's review the timeline on how we got to this point in the first place:

1. The CIA's Inspector General commissioned the first investigation into allegations of prisoner torture early in George W. Bush's first term
   
2. The CIA supplied both houses of Congress with unedited copies of its investigative report in 2004
3. The Bush Administration turned over the IG's findings to the Justice Department for review to see if any further action was warranted
4. Justice Department career attorneys, not political appointees as the Obama administration would have us believe reviewed those findings
5. The Justice Department spent a great deal of time--in fact, years--investigating the allegations
6. After all that, DOJ brought only one case, that of a private contractor who had beaten a detainee who subsequently died
7. In December 2008 Carl Levin (D-Michigan), a relic of the 1970s, began calling on the incoming Obama administration to hold Stalinist-type show trials for Bush administration officials on the issue of CIA interrogation methods (see our post from December 29, 2009)
8. The ACLU sued for public release of the 2004 classified CIA report
9. Attorney General Holder in April, after looking into the matter, declines to investigate further
   
10. A court orders the Justice Department to release the CIA findings

But maybe we should take this chronology a little further...

1. The tall pole in the administration's tent--nationalized healthcare--begins to collapse in June in the face of the hard facts about healthcare
   
2. Polls in July show for the first time a majority of Americans oppose what has become known as "ObamaCare"
   
3. By August the President's once enormous popularity has been whittled down to about 50%
   
4. The President stumps for ObamaCare in the Rockies, but can't move the needle in the polls on healthcare
   
5. Mr. Obama high-tails it to Martha's Vineyard for vacation, removing himself from the national spotlight for a week till things die down a bit
   
6. Eric Holder announces appointment of the special prosecutor to investigate the allegations of CIA-inspired "torture"
   

Nothing in Washington politics happens by accident. The timing of all this could not have been orchestrated better. Mr. Obama disappears, leaving a news void. A story that is five years old reappears on the front page, replacing daily coverage of angry Americans opposed to the President's healthcare plan. Opposition to ObamaCare cools a bit. The President's leftist base, a small but vocal minority, is appeased and re-energized to fight the final battle for healthcare when Congress returns from its summer recess.

But this could be a fatal misstep. Mr. Obama's political instincts, lauded so greatly during the campaign, have deserted him, much as the instincts of Lyndon Johnson, one of the greatest political minds of our time, deserted him during Vietnam. Mr. Obama is as out of touch with the public as President Johnson was in the 1960s. Like Presidents Johnson, Nixon and Carter, Mr. Obama is ill-served by a cadre of career Beltway advisers for whom governance is a board game, not public service. 

Mr. Obama fashions himself as a modern day Lincoln. But perhaps his antecedents are a lot closer than he thinks--three men in succession in the 1960s and '70s. Three men who, frankly, outpaced him in intelligence, experience, and instinct. And while they were Mr. Obama's betters, they engineered their own downfalls by failing to escape storms that they themselves started. 

Just thought you might like to know.

Mob Rule, Healthcare Style

You wanna talk all old-school? Then remember this rule:

 I am the one  who calls the shots!

-Tony Soprano

Fomer House Speaker Newt Gingrich had an interesting piece in the Washington Examiner last week, comparing House Energy and Commerce Committee poopah Henry Waxman to TV Mafioso Tony Soprano. I think we're making  progress when the two sides in the healthcare debate stop referring to each other as "Hitler" and wick the rhetoric back to TV crime characters.

Chairman Waxman has sent a letter to over 50 of the nation's largest health insurers demanding they produce for him a pile of information. This information includes:

• what their best paid executives make
• where the companies hold their offsite meetings
• who sits on their boards of directors and what they get paid

Why? Speaker Gingrich says its part of a coordinated attack by Democrats to intimidate insurance companies in the midst of the healthcare battle. What's curious to me is the fact that there are multiple stakeholders that have shaped our current healthcare system. For example:

• The Congress which has mandated that hospitals eat the bill for treating those without insurance, the unintended consequence of which has been to pass that cost on to the rest of us with insurance
• The tort bar, which has made billions of dollars on spurious suits against healthcare providers and their insurance companies, further raising healthcare costs and insurance rates
• A succession of DHHS agency executives who have let Medicare and Medicaid fraud and explode over the last 30 years
• International pharmaceutical companies whose pricing schemes are more opaque and confusing than airline fares
• Providers who no longer accept Medicare or Medicaid patients, partly because of conditions imposed on them by DHHS and state agencies

Why haven't they been drawn into this Inquisition? Could it have something to do with the fact that associations and lobbyists supporting the drug industry and doctors have cut what they feel is the best deal they can get and are supporting the Democrats' monster bill? And that the national Democrat Party has for years been the handmaiden of the tort bar?

This is intimidation, plain and simple, says Speaker Gingrinch. No different than if Vito and Paulie pay you a visit one night because you're a little behind on the vig.

Waxman may rough up the insurance execs a little. His bill, frankly, will go to the floor in any shape he wants it to. The House may pass it. The Senate and House may eventually send a bill to the president. He may sign it, giving Democrats the brave new world of healthcare they seek. But any law built on intimidation and bullying will have about has much legitimacy as a contract put out by an angry capo.

Just thought you might like to know. 

Welcome to the Fun House

The Fun House that is the national healthcare debate has more trap doors and surprises than you can imagine. With the 1,018 page (That's not writing legislation; that's typing legislation) House healthcare bill stalled, the Democrats are trying a new tactic to backdoor government-controlled healthcare. 

First "healthcare reform" morphed in the Fun House mirror into "healthcare insurance reform," when the American people dug their heels in. Then the so-called "public option" disappeared through a trap door, and the "insurance cooperatives" suddenly fell from the ceiling. Now the back door of the Fun House has opened and we're staring at the latest Freddy Kreuger tactic from  socialized healthcare proponents. They are starting to push on the state level to get state after state to socialize their health care. From their perspective, it's just a matter of time till Uncle Sam connects the dots and nationalized the healthcare industry.

The latest battleground is Pennsylvania. Democrats are moving a bill through the legislature that would, they say, provide free universal healthcare for all Pennsylvanians. "They say" is the key thing to remember.

Pennsylvania's Senate Bill 400/House Bill 1660 is a piece of work only politicians up for reelection could love. Free healthcare, no deductibles, no co-pays, nobody ineligible, no preexisting conditions. No exclusions Nothing. Free. Free. Free. Ain't life grand? Only problem is that in this world if you're a consumer, nothing's free.

Here's why. The Promise Them Everything Health Care Act is financed by a 3% tax on individuals and a whopping 10% tax on business payrolls. In a recession. When bankruptcies are already at their highest point in years. In a rust-belt state with an economy largely stuck in the 1950s. With one of the highest proportions of elderly citizens of any state. That noise you hear is businesses burning rubber to flee to tax haven Delaware--the Monaco of the East Coast--as fast as they can.

So as these legislative lions try to assure themselves another term by promising a healthcare Garden of Eden, I thought it would be a good thing to take a look a the track record of other states that have bigfooted their way into running healthcare. The record is not good. In fact, it's pretty ugly. Take a look at the results in four states, Tennessee, Maine,  Hawaii and Massachusetts, courtesy of healthcare consultant and analyst Nancy Bucceri of Chaddford Planning Associates:

Tennesee’s TennCare

-         started in 1994 with a $2.6 billion budget.

-         Ran efficiently the first few years

-         By 2004 spending ballooned to $8 billion, one third of the state’s budget

-         By 2005 170,000 beneficiaries had to be cut from the plan

-         45% of people with employer-based coverage left to join TennCare

-         To address costs, benefits were slashed, reimbursement rates were cut

-         Physicians have increasingly declined to accept new patients

 Conclusion:  TennCare has driven the state to near bankruptcy and has not solved the problem of getting affordable healthcare to those who can’t get it elsewhere.

 Maine’s DirigoChoice

-         started in 2003 with $50 million in stimulus money

-         the goal was to cover 128,000 uninsured

-         promised to insure everyone and save patients and businesses money at the same time

-         instead, it is $155 million over budget and rising

-         premiums have risen 74%, pushing most people out of the program

-         only 3,400 are in the program today

 Conclusion:  Maine’s health plan has not met the goal of providing access to healthcare for the uninsured, and yet has increased state spending for healthcare services.

 Massachusetts Commonwealth Care Health Insurance Plan

-         started in 2006, 40% over budget the first year alone

-         30% increase in ER utilization since program inception

-         funding relies heavily on a smoker’s tax (smoking is the leading cause of skyrocketing health costs in the US, but Mass needs people to keep puffing)

-         small businesses have cut jobs, salaries and other benefits to pay for it

-         employers have been reducing benefits, cutting healthcare coverage to the 33.3% minimum

-         over 1,023 employers have opted to pay the fine

 Conclusion:  Massachusetts has successfully increased the number of insured people, but it has not increased access to care and does not have a financially sustainable plan.

Hawaii’s Prepaid Healthcare Act

-         started in 1974.

-         Initially boasted one of  the lowest level of uninsured in the US, but was not lower than many states without universal healthcare

-         Hawaii’s medical cost inflation rate is rising faster than the overall inflation rate in the state (32.6% vs 29.8% between 2000-2008)

-         Uninsured private sector employee rate has risen to 13.25% as employers cut hours to avoid mandate

-         Average cost of premiums to families is $10,000.

 Conclusion:  The program worked for a while but has become financially unsustainable.

Pennsylvania lawmakers want to combine the current state Medicaid plan with coverage for everyone else, essentially running private insurers out of the state. So what's the Commonwealth's track record for managing healthcare insurance? Well, again, pretty ugly. 

The state Medicaid program serves nearly 2 million people already. Like a carnivore, it already consumes over a quarter of the state budget. With annual spending increases of 8%, it's projected to gobble up nearly 90%) pf the entire state budget by 2075. That's if nothing's done. Adding millions more Pennsylvanians to the rolls will only make things worse. 

By the way, about a buck and a half out of every ten tax dollars spent on the Medicaid program in Pennsylvania gets eaten up by fraud. Did I mention that with that kind of insatiable appetite for dollars, Medicaid has a reputation for low quality service? This is the model that politicians want to extend to the non-public assistance population of the state. Just a thought-- why not find ways to extend quality care to the minority of people on Medicaid, rather than the other way around?

The problem with these five states is that state lawmakers are relying on predictive modeling, which has never worked consistently for healthcare. Proof:  Since 1965, the Congressional Budget Office has consistently underestimated the cost of healthcare by as much as a factor of 10.   Government projections of revenue and expenses are unreliable predictors of how healthcare policies are going to play out. 

A better, more reliable way would be to use historic data and case studies in forming healthcare public policy, rather than models that have never proven accurate. But then those facts might get in the way of the optimistic story they're trying to sell to the public. 

Just thought you might like to know.

 

Routine No. 1

If media powerhouses like talk radio and Fox News are any indication, the wheels are coming off Barack Obama's longtime ambition to nationalize the U.S. healthcare industry. A July 29 Gallup poll shows that only 44% of Americans believe that the President's plan will result in improvements to healthcare. August has proved a hot month for Democratic congressmen who are getting roasted about the President's plan at town hall meetings across the country.

So the President has gone back to the old-time Democratic pol playbook, and called Routine No. 1. Democrat Routine No. 1 says never argue with conservatives on facts; you can't win. Always argue through emotion. 

Be prepared: The White House says expect a new healthcare sales tactic after Labor Day, when Pres. Obama rolls out a new media attack on conservatives. Out are deficit projections, quality life- year studies, and nuances between a public option and insurance cooperatives. In will be gut wrenching stories about heartless insurance companies and heart-tugging tales by little pigtailed girls about how daddy doesn't have any insurance anymore because he got laid off. 

Expect every television news program break to be crammed with million dollar spots produced by Madison Avenue and paid for by the President's unlikely bedfellows on this backroom political deal: the pharmaceutical industry, the American Medical Association and AARP. 

But don't you believe it. The President is a master of creating bogeymen and rallying support by blaming the bogey. As in his lifting the presidential ban on stem cell research: "Rather than furthering discovery, our government has forced...a false choice between sound science and moral values." In this case Pres. Obama painted his predecessor as a medieval mandarin, unable to reconcile science and religion, when the truth was the opposite. (Pres. Bush's ban led to tremendous strides on other types of cellular research that hold great promise.)

When you're carpet bombed with 30-second spots featuring the new Harry and Louise, cute little kids and huggable grandpas, remember the facts: what the President is desperately reaching for has resulted in rationing, backbreaking costs, and a lack of innovation everywhere it's been tried. Those are the facts.

So don't be impressed at this last-ditch effort at socialism. In 1948, at an Illinois campaign stop, a supporter shouted to Harry Truman during his stump speech, "Give 'em hell, Harry." The President's classic reply: "I don't give them hell. I just tell the truth, and they think it's hell." 

So when they try to hide the facts behind slick commercials and speeches to handpicked audiences, give 'em hell.

Just thought you might like to know.

Connecting the Dots

Enjoying a typical East Coast humid August morning, I noticed three disparate stories in the news today.

• The price of gasoline in nearly every section of the U.S. is on the rise
  

• The Dow Jones Industrial Average, which is the best leading economic indicator we have, fell by more than 186 points Monday
  

• The Wall Street Journal reports this morning that the Obama administration is lending Brazil $2 billion for new oil and gas exploration off its coast
  

Although these stories are unrelated, they are connected. The Dow lost about 2% of its value yesterday on a realization by Wall Street that, unlike in the past, consumers will probably not be able to spend the nation out of this recession. Consumers remain edgy about spending because of the uncertainty coming from Washington. How to pay for a deficit projected at $17 trillion by 2019, the ultimate shape and cost of healthcare "reform," and an unemployment rate that continues to rise, although more slowly, are all weighing on consumers minds as they make spending choices.

Part of that consumer uncertainty and pessimism is the cost of gasoline. Gasoline is a recurring expense. Every time you fill up you're reminded that prices continue to rise all over. This makes consumers wary of spending. For a consumer-driven economy, that's deadly. Our economy booms when consumers are optimistic, buying everything from durable goods to fishing tackle. When consumers pull back, there are fewer jobs that involve manufacturing, distributing and selling consumer goods. That means less tax revenue and even bigger deficits, which have to be filled by--you guessed it--higher taxes. And the spiral goes downward from there.

Which brings us to Brazil. Now, it might sound odd that a government which is on the verge of having to hold a telethon to raise money to pay its bills is lending a third world country cash to drill for oil off of its coast. Especially when that country has thousand of miles of coastline of its own that hold oil and gas deposits that could greatly lessen our energy dependence on countries like Brazil, Venezuela and the Arab states. In 2007 Enviro-kooks went to court to stop planned oil and gas exploration in Alaska. The Court has said that the ruling just applied to Alaska waters, not the remainder of the Pacific Coast. But the Obama Administration continues to slow walk plans for offshore exploration, in deference to its environmental masters. Meanwhile, we continue to inch back up to $3.00 a gallon.

So if we connect the dots this morning we have consumers voting with their pocketbooks on the economic recovery and the result isn't good. Consumers still don't believe the economic babble coming from Washington about prosperity being just around the corner. One reason is that the volatility of gasoline prices continues to remind us all how fragile our family finances are. And with a chance to encourage optimism, this Administration continues to demonstrate how tone deaf it is to how the American people really feel. Pres. Obama continues to pay homage to the environmental lobby and refuses to do something simple but concrete that will encourage optimism, get people spending again, and achieve real energy independence. 

Just thought you might like to know.

Playing Politics with Healthcare

I had an opportunity this weekend to participate in a “town hall” meeting on healthcare reform. The speaker was U.S. Representative Joe Pitts (R-Pa.) Far from the raucous meetings you see on Fox News or You Tube, this one was pretty sedate. It was held at a Knights of Columbus hall, sponsored by a pro-life group, and attended largely by pro-lifers who have supported Joe Pitts’ pro-life record in Congress. 

            Congressman Pitts is a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, one of three House committees that has jurisdiction over the healthcare bill. His talk was interesting because gave an “inside baseball” talk on the negotiations over H.R. 3200, the House’s healthcare reform bill. To understand his actions you have to know that Congressman Pitts chairs something called the Values Action Team, which is a coalition of about 70 congressmen, plus pro-life or pro-family groups like Focus on the Family. 

            The main topic of his remarks was that Committee chairman Henry Waxman and the other leftists in Congress are using healthcare reform as a way to backdoor abortion-on-demand into American public policy. This is occurring in a number of ways.

The Democrat-controlled House bill will mandate that health care providers that accept federal funding will have to offer abortion services or referrals. It will preempt state laws that place conditions on abortions. (About 40 states now have abortion notification provisions.) It will remove Bush-era protections for healthcare providers who refuse to provide abortion referrals or services for reasons of conscience. It will return federal funding for abortions to the District of Columbia. (Three days after his inauguration, Pres. Obama began playing his campaign debit to NARAL and the abortion industry by issuing an executive order that overturned previous prohibitions on federal funding of abortions in overseas family planning programs) 

            Congressman Pitts has offered four amendments to the bill that would restore right-to-life protections. These amendments have been subject to a variety of parliamentary maneuvers on the part of the majority, which will refuse to let them be introduced when the bill gets to the floor for full debate. Such is the state that our government has become. 

            Of course these lions of courage like Henry Waxman and Nancy Pelosi could stand up for their abortion beliefs in a heartbeat. Rather than payoff the abortion industry under the table in the healthcare reform bill, they could simply introduce a bill that asserts abortion as a legal right, preempts any state laws that restrict or regulate it, and offer to have the federal government pay for it. The majority party certainly has the votes in the House to do it. The Senate would be trickier, but whatever they came up with, Pres. Obama would sign it. 

            But the left lacks the courage of its own convictions. That’s why any healthcare bill would exempt members of Congress, so they could continue receiving their current gold-plated health benefits. So NARAL toadies like Chairman Waxman rely on parliamentary ruses to pay off their campaign debts but not have to answer to an angry American public, which is getting angrier by the day. 

            Just thought you might like to know.

"When We Took Over the Government"

I remember sitting in a meeting back in the mid-1990s and listening to a federal bureaucrat named Elaine Kamarck, a Clinton appointee, talked about all of the changes that the administration had made since 1993. To make the point about how life was different under the Clintons as opposed to 12 years of Republican administration, she juxtaposed then and now, using the phrase "when we took over the government." I had visions of Daniel Ortega pistoleros vaulting the White House fence off of Pennsylvania Ave. Hillary sitting in the Oval Office, wearing camo, boots up on the desk, drawing on a Cuban cigar.

I had my second when-we-took-over-the-government moment this week reading about the Obama counterattack on the furor building over his surreptitious plan to nationalize healthcare:

• The lame plot by an amateur White House to have Americans rat out their fellow citizens who disagree with the President's plan for government-controlled medicine

•  The spam attack from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. containing the approved talking points on healthcare reform. (And where, oh where, did they get all those email addresses? Check the video below)

• And now the real counterattack: sending union sluggers into the town hall meetings across American this weekend to intimidate Americans exercising their right of free speech
  

The town hall meetings are American democracy at its best. The tide has turned on Pres. Obama, although he doesn't know it yet. He is an academic liberal, a policy wonk, more comfortable in the salons of DC or New York than in upstate Pennsylvania or backwoods Alabama. The reason the tide has turned is that opponents of the President have drawn him out of the Beltway and made him fight on Main Street where he's not comfortable. 

The President's answer so far is to stay within his comfort zone. He is relying on support from special interest groups like the AARP, the AMA, or Big Labor--veteran Beltway lobbyists--to win the battle for him. 

In doing so, the President has set up an us-against-them scenario. In his mind and the minds of advisors David Axelrod, Rahm Emmanuel, Linda Douglass, and mouthpiece Robert Gibbs, they've taken over the government and they don't like being told what they can't do. 

Under this scenario it appears that we--the American people--have become the opponents, of our own government, according to Axelrod's spam message.  I am indignant and find it reprehensible that a president and his administration would think of the American people as his opposition.

Guess what, Dave? You haven't taken over anything. You control a building or two. Maybe state-run media. But that's not the government. The government's in session right now on Main Street. Read Amendment X. 

Just thought you might like to know.

/div>

surrenderyourrighttofreespeech@whitehouse.gov

President Obama's vision of nationalizing the healthcare industry is going down in flames. Congressmen home for the August recess are getting an earful from constituents upset at this radicalization of an important component of modern life. 

div>

So the President's answer: create another czar, or in this case, a czarina: Linda Douglass, former ABC newsie, and now the President's communications director for healthcare reform. Over the last year this blog has accused Democrats of failing to debate on issues and facts, and instead falling back on emotion and sound bites. Ms. Douglass is no exception. She is nothing if not unique in her strategy to avoid being drawn into debate.

Rather than pit one healthcare plan against another, her strategy is pit one American against another. She has created a website where you can go to rat out your fellow citizens if you think they are against the President's plan. So much for the first post-partisan president.

Well, Ms. Douglass, I wish to report an incident of disinformation on the healthcare debate. There is a website called flag@whitehouse.gov which is spreading falsehoods. On the home page it calls those of us who differ with the President "defenders of the status quo." Nothing could be farther from the truth. We believe in healthcare reform. That's why we oppose the President on this issue. His plan has less to do with reform and more to do with ideology. We fail to see how a trillion dollar plan is going to save money. We think American healthcare is pretty good, but way too expensive. We want to wring cost out of the system, preserve the incentives for innovative care solutions, and put Americans in charge of their own healthcare decisions. Hardly a status quo approach.

But if readers of this blog think I'm not a good American for wanting to do that, do me a favor. Go to the site, flag@whitehouse.gov, and rat me out. Right now. Perhaps the publicity will be good for the blog. If any reporter from the Wall Street Journal or Fox News finds out about it, the resulting publicity is sure to energize the blogosphere. That, in turn, will raise our Internet search rankings, resulting in even more readers. Far from stifling debate, flag@whitehouse.gov may result in a swelling tide of opinion against the President's ill-conceived plan. 

I could end up with a book deal. It's the American way.

Just thought you might like to know!